Aren't they saying the opposite? I think the point is to buy materials that will last so long that you won't need to replace them in your lifetime (or before you move house). But I'm not sure I'm reading it right.
Seems like it would be easy to fix this situation even without changing the law.
- Forbid browsers from sending the DNT header automatically. They may ask the user.
- Consider the DNT header valid consent or withdrawal of consent.
- Forbid websites from asking for consent if the header is set.
I think people who are using "literally" as emphasis instead of really meaning "in a literal sense" are criticized too much. It's just how language evolves.
But saying "literally by definition" for something that has nothing to do with the definition doesn't feel like emphasis, it feels like lying.
If you demoed a car, whose feature set included “often opening the glove box into your shins” and “texting inappropriate things to your ex”, you’d be pretty leery of using it. If random people kept going on about how much they love this car, and the ex-texting features were so good, that they hoped to upgrade them into “actively calling your ex” you’d be a bit leery of what they were talking about.
Every time someone talks about “how great PWA’s are” and how much better they’ll be after just some more features, I just hear “more stuff for advertisers to abuse”, “more things for half-assed devs to drain my battery and network with” and “more ways to have shittier experiences, slower” the less I’m interested in them.
More concretely, it’s a feature demo that doesn’t work (see navigation) for features I consider anti-features.
Do they lose their trademark if it gets used generically, or if they don't try to prevent that? Because common sense would imply the former, but then this video would just be a big admission that they already lost, no?
"Everywhere you go, you see this scratchy, hairy fastener and you say 'Hey, that's velcro!'"
You lose the right to defend your trademark if you don't make an effort to defend your trademark.
If 3M comes out with their own hook-and-loop fastener and calls it "3M Velcro", the court would say "you can't sue 3M over this since you clearly don't care when people say Velcro". This whole video is just to establish precedent.
You have to remember the purpose of trademarks -- they aren't primarily intended to benefit the trademark holder, they're intended as a consumer protection thing.
The idea is that you can rely on the name/packaging/etc. to actually indicate that the product was made by who you think it was made by.
If a trademark becomes generic enough, then it stops serving that purpose and so is no longer able to serve its protective function.
